Who Played and Liked 4th Ed?

[Schaaka]

Ive never played 4th ed but would like to hear what people have to say about it.

I remember back when (like last November or December, I think) when me and my friends got all excited and heard that wotc is coming out with little teaser books on the new and upcoming 4th ed. The first one came, classes and races was it?, I ripped open the pages and went into a mechanical furry with my eyes. Real soon I found myself re-reading paragraphs and then re-re-reading again cause "I.. I must be reading this wrong.. Why would someone say these are improvements? (correct me if I am wrong - there is a good chance in that) The 3.5 skill system was to cluttered and was greatly reduce?? Id play Halo or Madden if I wanted simple. The Spell schools were removed? W..Wh..Why>?>? They simplified the alignment system.."
One look at the core races and all I could think of (by that time my mind was in the gutter), all the 'pop' races were in the core book - It makes great sense from a financial standpoint but I don't think we need 4 types of elves, Tiefling without its counterpart, Drow who live in the underdark far away from those other races who have a distinct and justifiable acute racism towards the 'core' race (an underdark supplement where it has drow as a playable race and all her other underdark hommies would have been perfect) and that dragon race.. *shakes hand in fury* I hate dragon races. Theres always that 'Dragon' guy, whos gota have some sort of sprinkle of dragon blood in him that makes him better than you. To me Dragons are suppose to be formidable and ancient creatures not common as your house-hold cat.
When the pdf's came out I got my hand on the PH, MM, DMG and completely lost my faith in these guys. The combat system seems like it will play out like any MMO. Boring, tedious, and without the computer to do the number crunching for you. It all reminds me of justice league (the cartoon) everyone is a super hero now. With their super powers and stuff.. *grumble*grumble*
Tell me if I am just being bitchy, like when people were about when 3.0 came out from adnd.
Me and my friends were going to play the game (just to try it once - dont knock it until you try it -- Right??). But it didnt happen.
I just want someone to tell me that what ive been imagining is all wrong that 4th ed is not just a table-top version of a MMO and that it has many rp elements implemented into it? While they removed magic from the game, I can find that which was lost in these new found 'powers'?

I know what people will say.. "You dont have to play 4e". Your right, I dont but 4e is what they are going to make from now on till a new one. "You can play Warhammer, Pizaio, pathfinder, starwars, warcraft ect.." Which I can and each is probably a better game but the only problem is finding the people to play them. Every single one person wants to play their own game but never two or more can get together to form a group - meanwhile good ol' dnd is easy for people to accept and play. Or am I the only one with this kinda problem?

[VaticanT]

I like 4th ed. Compared to 3rd ed, it knows what it wants to be, which is an action fantasy game. In terms of Advances with the role-playing aspect, the Skill Challenges system is a simple but intriguing way of managing the non-combat aspects of the game - something I've applied to other games too.

[mhacdebhandia]

I have played Fourth Edition and I greatly prefer it to any previous edition of D&D.

[Safid]

I'm running it and I quite like it. To me, it is a fairly positive upgrade over 3E DND (which was itself much better than 2E, which I liked a good deal).

You really ought to try it before deciding for yourself. The quick-start, I believe, is still on WOTC's web site.

Being a long-time MMO player, I see relatively little that DND 4E has in common with MMOs that they didn't take from it first.

[MuscaDomestica]

Like it a lot better then 3rd ed (2nd ed was so long ago and tinged with nostalgia I am not trying to compare) has a different feel but everything seems to work together a lot better. There are fewer annoying fiddly bits and it moves a lot faster then before.

[Fallen Seraph]

I played 3.5 and a bit of 2 (just started when it ended, and quickly went to 3, but stopped for a while till 3.5). I absolutely adore 4th edition, it is easily in my eyes the most flexible and also narrative-oriented D&D yet.

To give a feel for how I play, so far all my 4e games have been low-magic, low-power campaigns with barely any combat (though very intense when it does happen) and mainly lots of dialogue, skill challenges, etc.

[fifth_child]

I've played Basic D&D (boxed set & Rules Cyclopedia), 2nd Edition AD&D, 3.0 and 3.5, and 4th. Although I got a great deal of enjoyment out of each of those, I strongly prefer 4e to any of the others. The main reasons why I like it better are pretty simple: 1) More unified design concept. 2) Runs more smoothly. 3) Less time and effort to GM.

Comparisons to MMO games can be made, and can even have a point, but it's very easy to take them too far. Basically, the designers said to themselves "What lessons can we learn from MMOs, and how can we apply those lessons to a tabletop game to produce a better experience?" Personally I think it'd be a mistake to assume that there are no lessons to be learned from anything as massively successful as WoW - even if many of them are lessons in what you might not want to do, or do differently. The key is to make sure that you're applying those lessons to the tabletop experience, and you're doing so in a way that improves play. I think the design team was pretty successful in those areas.

Also, nitpick: there's only 2 types of elves in the PHB - or I suppose 3 if you include half-elves. Drow are in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide.

[JDCorley]

I've played it and enjoyed it.

I liked Third Edition too (3.0 and 3.5 were close enough together that I don't really distinguish between the two too much.)

[Garris]

I have played 4th Ed and enjoy it. You aren't imagining all your complaints, but you are the architect of many of the flaws you see.

[Juriel]

Nothing MMO about it. It's just good, and the best edition of DnD yet.

If you go into it prepared to hate it, you will hate it. Same as with anything.

[Ranx]

I think 'like Justice League Unlimited' is an awesome description of mid-high level D&D4e combat.

[Ithaeur]

I've played it, and liked it. 4e is definitely a good game, with a very D&D feel; once our current 3.5 campaign ends (soon-ish, I hope), my group will likely make the transition.

[Pete Whalley]

I love my 3.5, and you\'ll have to pry my corebooks from my cold dead fingers before I give them up.

However...I\'m enjoying the heck out of 4e aswell. Sure, it\'s a different feel- but in a good way. Combat is smooooth now, and it\'s nice to see the party fighter still feeling like an integral part of the group at 5th level.

We have actual tension when a PC goes down- because any minute he could blow a death save and inch his way over the line. Much more fun than the steady -1,-2,-3 HP count down of previous editions.

Healing surges rock. No longer must a party have a cleric on hand to dole out the healing juice.

Finally, it\'s so easy to prepare for the game. I statted out a 12th level wizard, an 8th level Hobgoblin Fighter and a werewolf rogue in 30 minutes last night. That alone is awesome.

[joela]

I have, from both sides of the DM screen. Currently a player.

I like it. The power system is a radical departure from prior editions, but it still feels like D&D to me (e.g., classes/levels, escalating hitpoints, and going down into a dungeon, kill everything, and take their treasure).

[Vancian Magic]

I have it, not such a fan though...

It's better than 3.0/3.5 I think, sort of going the same direction, but in a cleaner and tidier manner.

Not the style of system for me though, and while I'm not big into this hate/praise thing that seems to run through these forums like bilious flame, I have gone back to AD&D 1st Ed. because that is more my scene.

So yeah, 4th is better than 3rd, but not my scene. If you liked 3rd in any form, then 4th is a further step thataway and seems to be doing a good job. But obviously there's a huge split in opinion still, and it might be a while before that dies down (of ever?) due to what a lot see as very drastic changes.

EDIT: There is certainly 'something' about the game that is a triggers a huge yes button/no button response from the hobby audience. I don't believe it is all just kissing WotC's arse or defying the game out of spite (though sure, there's likely some of both). For me some of the big changes are 'bad things', like minion rules, class mechanical commonality, new races, no normal animals listed, etc. but of course for other players these are huge positives.

[Neil Phillips]

I am a big fan of 4E, in fact, I'd say it's the best game I've ever GM'd.

[Random Code]

In my experience 4th edition is the Marmite of D&D. You're either going to love it or hate it. Me, I'm definitely with Paddington on this one*. :)

* Paddington Loves Marmite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eean1pNVkoY)

EDIT: If you think of the sandwich as D&D 4 and the pidgeon as any of the members on here that dislike it, its even funnier. The copper is one of the mods. ;)

[Schaaka]

Interesting, I will try to specifically run 4e next time I can.

But entertain me, no one mentioned of the magic in the game.
By far and large the magic is my favorite aspect of 3.5.
Feats were your power gamming tool but magic was where the game became interesting (unless of course you prefer to sling fireball after fireball for a profession, too boring for me).

Also as Vancian Magic stated that he was, why are there still AD&D diehard fans. Ive played that version like once or twice (once being hackmaster) and several computer games using the AD&D rules set (but obviously its not the same as playing the table top version). What are some of the.. compelling elements that AD&D brings still so many players to play it?

[Tohya the Witch]

I ran it, we had fun, but I don't quite think I was doing it right. There's a better game in there than I managed to get out, and I'd love to play in a campaign and see it.

[Garris]

Interesting, I will try to specifically run 4e next time I can.

But entertain me, no one mentioned of the magic in the game.
By far and large the magic is my favorite aspect of 3.5.
Feats were your power gamming tool but magic was where the game became interesting (unless of course you prefer to sling fireball after fireball for a profession, too boring for me).

Also as Vancian Magic stated that he was, why are there still AD&D diehard fans. Ive played that version like once or twice (once being hackmaster) and several computer games using the AD&D rules set (but obviously its not the same as playing the table top version). What are some of the.. compelling elements that AD&D brings still so many players to play it?

The magic is much different from before. As you no doubt noticed, 'spells' are divided between powers and rituals now. Powers are largely combat-related, with a number which aren't that is greatest in the case of Wizards, followed by rogues and Warlocks. Rituals cover the vast majority of non-combat spells. Divinations, illusions, enchantments, conjurations, curative and resurrecting spells, teleportation, mass travel, etc... have seen many of their spells turned into rituals. While not the exclusive domain of Wizards and Clerics, they are presently the only classes which begin with access to them, and only Wizards receive free rituals as they advance.

That said, because powers do some of what magic did in 4e, every character has interesting options. Many of the people who like 4e most are those who liked the idea of playing a (anything other than a primary spellcaster) but learned that it came free of meaningful options in 3e. While you called it 'superpowers' I know everyone I game with appreciates that they can have a meaningful and interesting impact on the outcome of the battle they're fighting at all levels of play regardless of the class they chose. Similarly, the reduction in instant use magic that invalidate skill checks means that characters can all use their skills to effect outside and inside of combat.

[Smartmonkey]

I played and enjoyed 4e.

I am still playing an enjoying 4e.

My warlord just hit level 5. We haven't gone into combat since the very end of level 3. Such a thing would be absolutely unheard of in 3.5 under the corebook rules. If that doesn't remove the "it's pure combat MMO hack and slash" protest, I don't know what will.

[Nahualt]

I have played it and GM it and I think its the best D&D version so far.

I would also like to add that having MMO influences is not a bad thing. :D

[Belphanior]

You know, I get the feeling 4e is just not the game for Schaaka. He sounds like the kind of person who wants his spellcasters to be more powerful, or at least versatile, than the mortals who didn't have the brains to do much more than swing around a stick.

And that's fine. Nothing wrong with having different tastes.

Me, I like 4th edition much better than any other edition of D&D, and even much more than most other RPGs. Fourth edition saves me money by killing my interest in other gamelines. That hasn't happened to me before.

Actually, in half an hour my players will arrive to play a session. And they include newbies and folks who cut their teeth on AD&D alike, but they all seem to like the new edition.

[Trombone4Hire]

I played two sessions and ran one, and I had a great time. My first experience was a non-roleplaying, pure combat demo. We blew through 3 full and interesting encounters in 45 minutes (an achievement I never thought possible in a D&D game). My next sessions was a pure roleplaying session where my character was never involved in combat but contributed meaningfully to the plot and played his part in a skill challenge. My third session was one I ran for my group, which was a fairly railroady combat-focused scenario. It consisted almost entirely kobolds, but it remained fun and interesting through the use of different combat roles and the tactics involved. I have a pretty strong understanding of the rules now, and while I don't think every mechanic is intuitive and rational, at the end of the day I'm having more fun with this than with any other edition of this game.

[Uqbarian]

I've run five sessions so far, and everyone seems to be enjoying it. We haven't really used ritual magic or skill challenges yet, though.

[Mr Jack]

It's a big step forward; both as a player and as a DM.

The biggest single improvement is the Wizard; they feel so much more magical than before. No longer are you thinking: can I spare a precious spell on this and instead you're thinking how can I use magic in this situation.

[andreww]

Feats were your power gamming tool but magic was where the game became interesting (unless of course you prefer to sling fireball after fireball for a profession, too boring for me).
This does not compute.

The magic system is widely considered to be the biggest area where 3.x falls apart.

[Icarium]

Ran 4E: It was great.

I continue to run 4E. Would love to play, sometime. ;)

My one peeve in relation to 4E is powers. There's not enough of them at low level. I'd be happier if the powers curve started higher, say at 2 At-Will/2 Encounter/1 Daily instead of 2/1/1.

But I don't think that simplifying a game is a bad thing. Then again, I also play games like FATE and PDQ and so on. :)

[Jim DelRosso]

Been running it since release, and playing in another game since just shortly after. We're having a great time with it, and at the table I've seen folks who're involved heavily in gaming, folks who've never gamed before, and folks who haven't touched dice since 1e. Just about everyone's had a great time with it (even the guy who came to the table saying that he'd read through the PHB and it just seemed like WoW to him ;)).

So you, I'm loving the hell out of it.

[Alfonzo]

I have played Fourth Edition and I greatly prefer it to any previous edition of D&D.

Yup, me too.

[Yo! Master]

As expected from one of the main nodes of the Yo!-Belphanior Hive Mind, i have indeed played 4e & had a good time doing so, both as a player & as a DM (in fact, first time i DMed D&D, as this time around it didn;t feel to me like a chore to do so).

:)

[The Red Stranger]

But entertain me, no one mentioned of the magic in the game.By far and large the magic is my favorite aspect of 3.5.
Feats were your power gamming tool but magic was where the game became interesting (unless of course you prefer to sling fireball after fireball for a profession, too boring for me).

The wizard's combat spells are mostly damage dealing with a few buffs damage dealing spells in combat now. Many of these damge doing spells do have other harmful effects though. Clerics are similar to wizards except their damage spells can grant buffs instead negative status. Non-combat spells have been turned into rituals. Rituals cost money and take up a lot of time (and sometimes take up healing surges). While this works for some spells resurrection it does not work for others such as tenser's floating disc. On the plus side cantrips can be cast at will.

[Mock]

4E is the only game I've ever been interested in running more than a couple sessions of; it has consumed my gaming fancy, leaving me only vaguely interested in the existence of other games.

[Safid]

There are still plenty of interesting spells and rituals, but the design philosophy of 4E was that magic should not dominate every aspect of the game. Instead, characters with skills should be given a chance to, well, use their skills.

What this means in practice is that you don't see many spells that duplicate niches like 'finding traps' or 'getting NPCs to help you'. Instead to do those sorts of things you rely on your trusty Rogue or Warlord.

Also 4E eliminated save-or-die spells, which means that combat is decided by more than who rolls for initiative.

As for giving encounter and daily abilities to non-spellcasters, those powers aren't spells. There are mechanical differences as well as flavor that differentiate Fighter exploits (rush in, knock some guys over) from Wizard spells (create walls of fire).

I think the game is greatly enhanced by all of these things, and as I am currently running a campaign, IMO it feels like DND. There are still heroic characters wandering around looking for dragon's lairs to rescue <someone> and to get their mitts on a hoard of gold and treasure. There are still HP and levels and classes. The system is cleaner and more unified and balance between what class you pick is much closer to being achieved.

In play, the game is FUN. Skill challenges are a great idea (if you use the reworked math) and add an awful lot to the game. The lack of reliance on magic to solve every problem means that people have to find creative ways to apply their skills -- honestly it feels a lot more like ODND in that respect. Combat is much faster than 4E and is easy as hell to run as a DM. Give the new system a try at your local gaming store and make up your own mind.

[Nahat Anoj]

I've played it and I most definitely like it. The only quibble I have is that even a "standard" combat at low level feels like it takes longer, but at least everyone gets a turn and it's pretty fun. The reason why I don't like longer combat isn't because it's boring, it's because I want to see the delight on the player's faces :) (which is easily done by adding more xp).

But yeah, best version of D&D so far, IMO. I can't imagine going back.

[ArchibaldGant]

I always found it humorous how, when talking about D&D, simplification/streamling = making it dumb, but if you head over to the RPG.net general board, everyone is always talking up these minimalist indie games. :D

Anyway, 4E is a lot of fun, and there were good reasons for putting a lot of those sacred cows to rest, not the least of which is that ditching alignment and various other things makes it a lot easier to construct different and interesting worlds without tweaking the core rules. Restricting the skills also helps keeps things intelligible, and I have a homebrew set of separate 'professional skills' that I use to round out the system for my players. Your comment about 'number crunching without the computer' is also off the mark since one of the best things about 4E is that combat flows a lot more smoothly than 3.5

Also, there are only two types of elves in the core book, not four, and no, Wizards did not add the Eladrin because they're an evil corporation who are only interested in marketing. The division of elves into 'high elves' and 'wood elves' has been a fantasy trope since the get-go, going all the way back to the differences between Lothlorien and Rivendell elves in LOTR.

[Pete Whalley]

Something I somehow forgot to mention is the removal of magic weapons as necessity. Odd that I would forget about it, since it\'s my favourite change.

No longer do you need a +x weapon to seriously wound any manner of opponent-my favourite example of this is the fighter who beats Orcus to death with a chair leg.

Spells as mention earlier, are now less an I Win button, and more another form of power. Rituals are nice though- they feel magical, and are kept for things like Tenser\'s Floating Disc, Enchant Item and Raise Dead.

Basically, if a spell isn\'t directly useful in combat it\'s a ritual. And since anyone can learn and use them, they go a long way to creating a magical world. You can have the hermit who knows the secrets of ressurection, the old widow who can fix anything with a few words, or the court spy who listens in on the crown\'s enemies via scrying.

It\'s cool.

[Yo! Master]

I always found it humorous how, when talking about D&D, simplification/streamling = making it dumb, but if you head over to the RPG.net general board, everyone is always talking up these minimalist indie games. :D

Heh. Actually, due to elements like its very clear focus, overall transparency, focus on the PCs, kinda rules for conflict resolution, etc. & the overall style of its design 4e does remind me a lot of an indie game, albeit one published by a big company.

And as this is something that also keeps being said about WW's latest nWoD games & design efforts it makes for an interesting pattern.

[Nahualt]

Heh. Actually, due to elements like its very clear focus, overall transparency, focus on the PCs, kinda rules for conflict resolution, etc. & the overall style of its design 4e does remind me a lot of an indie game, albeit one published by a big company.

And as this is something that also keeps being said about WW's latest nWoD games & design efforts it makes for an interesting pattern.

If only WW would go the simpler way ( and by simpler I mean less dice), that alone would make me a rabid fan of theirs. :(

[Shroomy]

I've played 4e and I love it, probably more than 3.5e. I haven't DM'd the game yet, but it is so easy and fast to create new stuff for it.

[ChessyPig]

I like 4E. I like MMOs, too, though. I like powers making everyone have something useful / colourful to do in a fight rather than 'I hit him with my mace again'. I like magic being hugely simplified (and the complicated bits being tucked off into rituals that I don't have to prepare in the morning) so I don't have to spend half an hour agonising over my spell choices.

I can see that if you like the 'what spell can I apply to this situation in a new and original fashion to get around this problem' game, 4E does limit you a bit. OTOH your non-magic characters can finally do something interesting and your magic-using characters can jump straight in and throw magic around all the time rather than being reduced to plunking away with their crossbows.

[Cam Banks]

In my experience 4th edition is the Marmite of D&D. You're either going to love it or hate it.

Vegemite is superior to Marmite in every way.

But yes, 4E is awesome.

Cheers,
Cam

[Yo! Master]

In my experience 4th edition is the Marmite of D&D. You're either going to love it or hate it.

Don't really agree.

We've seen people in these very forums who:

i) are lukewarm about 4e, liking some of its aspects but not others or for some such other reason

ii) thing 4e does what it does well, but what it does is not what they want from an RPG

iii) thing it's neat enough but not as neat as the edition of D&D they prefer

[MoogleEmpMog]

I've played 4e (albeit only briefly) and find it is:

a) by far the best-designed version of D&D to date, with tight, clear and purposeful rules.
b) the most fun to play version of D&D with the possible exception of BECMI "Basic" D&D.

While I have yet to run a game using 4e, I HAVE back-converted its DM backend (ecounter building, monster creation, quest XP awards, etc.) to the Star Wars Saga Edition-based campaign I was already running. While the play is 'better' and 'good,' the DM backend is INCREDIBLE, a VAST improvement on anything I've seen on a high-crunch game.

[Khairn]

I've played over a dozen sessions of 4E and found too many issues with it to be my system of choice for fantasy gaming.

Some of my main concerns with it are ...

Incomplete
IMO the PHB feels incomplete. Aside from previously "core" races and classes that are missing, WotC included only a single controller class in the PHB. I know that WotC wants us to buy next years PHB II, but making it's purchase mandatory in order to get the rest of the game is lame. In fact 4E's entire marketing plan where everything published is officially "core" material for all games and settings, makes buying every book, or paying the monthly subscription a necessity if you want the latest update to the 4E system. Nothing is officially "optional". Everything is "core". (Yes I know I don't have to buy it, but its such a transparent money-grab that it leaves me shaking my head in wonder.)

Single Mechanism
I understand the design teams over-riding focus on "Balance". Its the mantra, the holy word, and is at the center of all the decisions made about the game. To create "Balance" the designers introduced Powers. Everyone has the exact same number of powers, that work the exact same way. And the powers of classes that fulfill the same Role in combat, have the same flavor. In addition all magic that isn't specifically combat related are now rituals which are available to all classes at a very low cost. (a couple of feats) Now this type of uniformity may be fine for you and your group, but I found it tedious to play after awhile.

Gamist
The degree to which gamist elements have been added to 4E, leaves a particular taste in my mouth. Many of them are small, but some are not and can have a huge impact on the character, without any rational reason why. Small elements include diagonal movement not costing additional squares (your pc doesn't move in feet but in squares) or square fire balls. While more jarring (to me) gamist elements include, powers that allow you to do damage to your target with your weapon even when you miss the target, and magic items that use up one of your Daily Powers to activate it. Why a power can only be used once a day is already arbitrary, now they've added another arbitrary rule to take it away. These are to me, rules that make little or no sense at all but are needed to keep "Balance". (that's with a capital B)

IMO, 4E is a fast and easy game to play. It's a great pick-up and convention game. And to be honest, if I was making the decisions for WotC, I would have designed it the same way, because this is the type of game needed to reach their target market.

I will also admit that the game does play well, and I have enjoyed some of the sessions that I've played. The game didn't prevent me from having fun and didn't limit my opportunities to RP. There are also some outstanding elements that I really like such as the skill challenges.

But overall, this is not the type of game that suits my style of play. I like some complexity in the rules, and can easily handle players who want to play a PC that is more focused in one area and weaker in another. I enjoy a system that offers a greater level of resource management for those players who want it. I also like a system that can be tweaked and changed to support different genres. Maybe when the rest of 4E is released it will show that flexibility, but from what I've seen so far, I have my doubts.

Just my opinion.

[The Disgruntled Poet]

I have played in a few sessions of a 4E campaign and am enjoying it. As a long-time DM, I'm looking forward to DMing my first sessions of it soon.

I was never completely sold on 3.x because of the complexity, the prep time, and what to me seemed like intrusively crunchy combat rules. Parts of AD&D and 2E sucked too, but 3.x was the first edition where I just didn't even want to fuck with it any more.

4E is better for me because I feel like they have kept the progress of things going (simplifying the mechaics, using high numbers on a D20) but also simplified the game's combat, skills and the DM's prep-- while keeping the tactics and the DM's options interesting!! This is no mean feat. (no pun intended) :D

I still feel pulled back toward earlier editions, especially AD&D and BECMI because those systems mimic the genre sources I like best: Vance, Moorcock, Howard, Lovecraft, Lieber.

In a way, the only thing I don't like about 4E is its elegant balance of player powers-- it seems to imply that the universe is fair and well-ordered and everyone is "above average" in their own special way. That's not my worldview, not that of the fantasy literature I like, and not really the worldview of my campaign world either, so that's going to be interesting to see how compatible it is with my DMing.

But as a unified game design that really achieves what it sets out to be-- streamlined, playable, fun, tactically interesting-- I give 4E high marks.

[Yo! Master]

I understand the design teams over-riding focus on "Balance". Its the mantra, the holy word, and is at the center of all the decisions made about the game.

I believe that to be "Fun (& everyone should be having it)". Balance is a means to that end.

After all people having fun with the game is very much important for that sales thing to happen. ;)

[Khairn]

I believe that to be "Fun (& everyone should be having it)". Balance is a means to that end.

After all people having fun with the game is very much important for that sales thing to happen. ;)

Fun is indeed what its all about. But I guess I just don't buy that Balance = Fun.

[Sunsword]

I've played 4E alot. It made me a true D&D fan. 2E was impossilbe after playing Champions. 3.X didn't got far enough with fixes & was impossible for me to run.
4E is all about Swashbuckling Style Adventure in a fantasy setting & I love it. EVERYONE has something to do. I think the Encounter & Daily Powers really inject drama & strategy into an encounter & make sense from a story POV. Action Points are simple & cool. Its the game I could play for the rest of my days, I never thought I'd say that.

Oh & the Cleric ROCKS! Its insane.

[ArchibaldGant]

Fun is indeed what its all about. But I guess I just don't buy that Balance = Fun.

That's understandable, but I'd like to add that while I see the balance issue often discussed from the player-end, it's central appeal to me is that it's yet another aspect of the system that makes DM'ing easier. Now, for some types of games, balance doesn't really need to be considered to begin with, but in combat-oriented genres, being able to design adventures that minimize the need for metagame fudging is paramount and this took a terrible amount of time to do in 3.5, even with the often inexact 'challenge rating' system.

[Gilbetron]

Incomplete
IMO the PHB feels incomplete.
I agree with this, although I don't find it to an extreme level. However, it doesn't bug me, as D&D is about years of fun supplements and additions and this is the first edition to admit that. What the core PHB is is the basic rules with an example set of races and classes. Which I find cool.
Single Mechanism
Everyone has the exact same number of powers, that work the exact same way.
I'm with you in that "Balance doesn't mean fun", and agree that Power can sometimes feel a bit "samey". However they definitely don't "work the exact same way". There is a core structure that powers share (much like spells had), but it's hard to say "Knight's Move" works the same as "Eyebite" works the same as "Invisibility" works the same as "Iron Tide".

As for the original post, I think 4E is very cool, but not without it's faults. Leading amongst them is it's focus on grid combat. Don't get me wrong, the grid combat system is *fun*, but a lot of powers don't work without it, and that's kind of annoying. But I think either WotC or a 3rd party can create a set of classes that don't focus on grid combat, so I'm not too worried.

Other things feel "strange" - such as Saving Throws, which are a neat mechanism but are just psychologically jarring compared to previous editions. The lack of durations, for the most part, is weird, but makes sense - it's easier to test once a round to see if something goes away than to keep track of a bunch of durations.

Finally, the biggest positive of 4E can be a huge negative for many fans of D&D - it's shift to a more gamist design approach. If you want rules to mimic "how things really work" (ignoring the goofiness of that statement), then you won't like 4E much. 4E makes design decisions based on how fun it is to play, and to try to give characters things to do in most situations. I think that's great, but if you want a "fantasy medieval simulator" then skip 4E.

But overall I've enjoyed it a lot, I think Healing Surges make for very fun combats, and having options beyond "I hit it" for all the classes generates much engaged players.

[Dr.Bubonicus]

4E is the only game I've ever been interested in running more than a couple sessions of; it has consumed my gaming fancy, leaving me only vaguely interested in the existence of other games.

I have nearly the same feelings toward it as Mock insofar as 4e consuming my interest. I recently converted my homebrew setting to 4e and all I want to do is run 4e in that setting.

The only real difference is that I'm still extremely interested in COC (BRP) as well.

Between these two games, I want for nothing.

Also, I would even enjoy some sort of "Advanced" D&D miniatures game that isolates the combat mechanics of 4e as its own sub-game. I think the 4e combat system is that fun.


Finally, the biggest positive of 4E can be a huge negative for many fans of D&D - it's shift to a more gamist design approach. If you want rules to mimic "how things really work" (ignoring the goofiness of that statement), then you won't like 4E much. 4E makes design decisions based on how fun it is to play, and to try to give characters things to do in most situations. I think that's great, but if you want a "fantasy medieval simulator" then skip 4E.


I agree with this as well. I normally like a less-gamist playstyle but I love how it's presented in 4e.

[Uruush]

I've played every edition of D&D (going back to 1980 anyway), and 4E is my favorite by far.

Combat is now something everyone looks forward to instead of something to avoid. In previous campaigns we would only have a combat every other session or so, and they were rarely as much fun as we wanted them to be.

Prep time for running it is less than a third of what it was for 3E, which is really important to me.

[Mostlyjoe]

I've falling in and out of 4E a lot recently. At first I wouldn't touch it, but over the year leading up to its release I build it up to be far more than it was. After my first few session I ran into a problem with how I visualize the game but slowly learned that its a great toolkit to run high action fantasy game. I may think the PCs are too combat oriented, want more fluff, but the foundation of the game is solid. Scary solid. So for that I love 4E.

[Random Code]

Don't really agree.

Fine. I was making a light hearted comment that wasn't to be taken seriously. I thought the rest of my post (with links to Paddington) would have made that obvious. Cam Banks got the idea, seems like you didn't. Never mind.

[Random Code]

Vegemite is superior to Marmite in every way.

Heh, heh. Ach! Ya big heathen! ... Both are nicer than Bovril though. That stuff's just yuck. :p

[Yo! Master]

Fine. I was making a light hearted comment that wasn't to be taken seriously. I thought the rest of my post (with links to Paddington) would have made that obvious. Cam Banks got the idea, seems like you didn't. Never mind.

I got you were joking. It's just my need to be pedantic just overcame my snickering at the time. :p

[Random Code]

I got you were joking. It's just my need to be pedantic just overcame my snickering at the time. :p

Ya big bloody wind up merchant! ;)

[devlin1]

I have played Fourth Edition and I greatly prefer it to any previous edition of D&D.
Ditto, pretty much.

But by all means, let's re-heat this age-old debate.

[Front Toward Everybody]

I've played and DMed Red Box as a kid (Bargle is a giant bag of dicks), 1e and 2e AD&D, 3e, and 3.5. I am both playing and GMing regular games of 4e now.

In my opinion, 4e is the most fun to play in my book. Now every class has interesting finite resources to manage and employ and important tactical decisions to make besides how many points to drive up their power attack.

It is also the most fun and straightforward to GM. Designing encounters is a cinch, allotting treasure is as simple as checking off parcels and picking out a fun toy from the PHB. The ease of mechanical prep leaves me more time to focus on the ins and out's of whats going on in narrative terms. I also find that the way combat is structured, it's much easier to hit the "sweet spot" of a challenging, tactically dynamic encounter with real "risk" without overdoing it or having your adversaries run roughshod over by some fluke.

People have made some complaints that the books are less florid in their prose and more functional, less "entertaining to read" and I can't disagree on that count. As a game reference, however, I think these are the best designed rulebooks so far. The flip-side of that is that it's a very well crafted, easy to run, easy to play game; and that's personally just what I want.

That said, it's a very different animal from previous iterations, and Your Kink is Okay, Your Milage May Vary, and so on.

[ElvisSavage LordSideburn]

I find 4e okay to play, but preferred 3x. People are already complaining about the sameness of members of classes, as they did in Earthdawn, but Earthdawn had a rich background campaign.

[Sangrolu]

Fun is indeed what its all about. But I guess I just don't buy that Balance = Fun.

Balance aids fun, except when it hinders it. ;)

[Christopher V. Brady]

ii) thing 4e does what it does well, but what it does is not what they want from an RPG

This is sorta me. I had a BLAST playing it, just not sure if it's what I want in a Fantasy game.

As for Balance and Fun, I'm kinda confused as to why anyone would want to spend time being overshadowed or being made to feel useless by another player...

But that's just me...

[Agent Oracle]

The 3.5 skill system was to cluttered and was greatly reduce??

Yep, they condensed some of the context-sensitive skills together into broader categories for purposes of giving characters the ability to be good at multiple things. you'll never run into a rogue who is good at the old Either-Or of Hide or Move Silently. Likewise, Perception covers both Spot and Listen. Plus, Passive Perception eliminates the need for GM's to clue his players in with the familiar cry of "Roll a spot check". when the other guy is trying to be stealthy.

The Spell schools were removed? W..Wh..Why>?>?

Quick: What's the core difference between Conjuration, Transmutation, Evocation, and Illusion?

The answer after 20 or 30 supplements was: Not terribly much. Illusion can summon as many creatures as conjuration, which can deal as much direct damage as Evocation, which could change the way things were just like Transmutation... and so on down the line. "Power Creep" had changed into "Range Creep" as every class wanted to be able to do a little of every other class and it all wound up horribly imbalanced.

There was no real rewards for being a school specialist in 3e, and likewise, there is no school specialization in 4e. The fact that the collective "spell list" has been cut considerably (and further parsed into the division of At-will, encounter, daily, and Ritual powers) actually makes it more fun, especially since nearly all of the most interesting 3e spells can be converted into a ritual.

They simplified the alignment system.."

Yep, the 3x3 is now a z shaped "5 alignments" The remaining Alignments are LG (Which, incidentally, paladins no longer have to be) G, U (Unaligned: So much better than neutral!), E, and CE. Notice the exclusion of CG, CN, N, LN and LE? Good. They were weak, poorly defined often argued alignments. Especially the chaotic ones. Unaligned is just infinitely more satisfying than neutral, since most traditionally "It's evil because we say it's evil" monsters now fall under the unaligned category (Dragons, for instance) which opens up your options when dealing with them.

One look at the core races and all I could think of (by that time my mind was in the gutter), all the 'pop' races were in the core book - It makes great sense from a financial standpoint but I don't think we need 4 types of elves,

It's not "pop" races. You've got Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, Half-Elves, Eladrin, Tieflings (They really were much more popular and interesting than their celestial counterpart), and Dragonborn (Which are both new and nifty)

There's only one type of Elf in the PHB. The Eladrin are actually Fey (More *pure* than the elves.) Drow are in the Monster Manual (Still)... i don't know who the fourth one was, since I never bought that book, but rest asured: Just one elf, half-elf, and Fey.

Drow who live in the underdark far away from those other races who have a distinct and justifiable acute racism towards the 'core' race (an underdark supplement where it has drow as a playable race and all her other underdark hommies would have been perfect)

Drow and their "homies" are playable, from the monster manual, which gives them a full PC-ready setup. Ditto for kobolds, Orcs, and, for the first time, ever: GNOLLS!

and that dragon race.. *shakes hand in fury* I hate dragon races. Theres always that 'Dragon' guy, whos gota have some sort of sprinkle of dragon blood in him that makes him better than you. To me Dragons are suppose to be formidable and ancient creatures not common as your house-hold cat.

*shrugs* personally, they work out for me. it's not a big deal, really. And thanks to D&D's good old rule 0, you can drop them out of your game, just beware the wrath of kobolds.

when the pdf's came out I got my hand on the PH, MM, DMG and completely lost my faith in these guys. The combat system seems like it will play out like any MMO. Boring, tedious, and without the computer to do the number crunching for you. It all reminds me of justice league (the cartoon) everyone is a super hero now. With their super powers and stuff.. *grumble*grumble*

it's not an MMO. It never will be. it's elegantly streamlined. Much simpler and easier to appreciate.

No more "Okay, making a concentration check... 18 passes. He casts a spell... does 14 hit your Touch AC? yours? yours?... okay, make a fortitude save... okay, roll spell resistance, 12? no, not enough, .... Now every player on the field takes take 7d8 fire damage, minus your DR and resistance."

and for melee, it was "Okay, his AC is 21 so my attacks are... 24... 22... 20 is a miss. 18 total whiff. and 27. So three hits, with my great sword, for 6d6 + 3d6 fire, 3d6 electrical, and 3d6 cold. And I do +36 strength damage. (+12 on each)

Now it's: "18 hits your reflex defense? I deal 2d4+5 damage, any DR or Resistance?"

You know what? I *like* The fact that the wizard doesn't dominate the spotlight in combat now. I like that my paladin, who started out with no stat higher than 16, is still awesome and doesn't need *any* magical equipment to "Keep up with the Eliminsters".

And no: it's not like an MMO. Combat is fresh, different. Roleplaying rules are present (the skill challenge system makes negotiations tense, and some classes even gain social powers and abilities (like my Paladin's ability to gain a power bonus to diplomacy, making lizardmen surrender: priceless!)


Tell me if I am just being bitchy

You're being bitchy ;)

I just want someone to tell me that what ive been imagining is all wrong that 4th ed is not just a table-top version of a MMO and that it has many rp elements implemented into it? While they removed magic from the game, I can find that which was lost in these new found 'powers'?

1 magic isn't gone. Wizards still have a spell book (and a ritual tome, if they are smart... which they *are*) and they can adjust their powers much more easily than other classes. Warlocks get their eldritch blasts and other powers besides. Clerics still get to pray, and even paladins can toss around a "lay on hands" when the situation dictates. Furthermore, Ritual casting means you can transport most of the common 3.x utility spells over to 4.0 with minimal fuss and GM involvement.

two: it's not a table-top MMO. No MMO will ever *ever* come close to the levels of interaction and narrative importance you find in D&D. If anything, MMO's are computer-aided Table-Top game.

Every single one person wants to play their own game but never two or more can get together to form a group - meanwhile good ol' dnd is easy for people to accept and play. Or am I the only one with this kinda problem?

Yeah, some folks do, other folks are snobs about "just their system." D&D is the casual, common, accepted currency of RPGs. Everyone knows the trope... and 4e is really well refined in that trope, while being amazingly balanced and cohesive.

Plus, with predefined "powers' at given levels, there is much lower probability of "power creep"

[Sangrolu]

As for Balance and Fun, I'm kinda confused as to why anyone would want to spend time being overshadowed or being made to feel useless by another player...

But that's just me...

The problem is balance is not a universal constant. Different games have different key challenges, different key contexts, different events. Something that is weak given the norms of your game might be strong in mine, or vice versa.

You can--and 4e tries--to homogenize fun to make balance more meaningful. But doing so stands in the way of creativity IMO/E.

When balance becomes the end instead of the means, fun goes by the wayside.

[sigma7]

When balance becomes the end instead of the means, fun goes by the wayside.

Thankfully, balance is the means in 4th Ed. The end is a mechanic that encourages cooperative play. Balance is important to cooperation in this context. You can still have your niche specialties (I'd never expect the Wizard to be a frontline combat monster like, say, the Paladin is) but the system is designed so that powers and abilities from members of different roles will complement, not overshadow, everyone else. Think synergistic combos instead of solitary displays of awesome.

As for me, I've played a little bit of 4th Ed. I came to the table expecting to be underwhelmed, but I have to say it quickly won me over. I can't wait to run a game. I never thought I'd say that about D&D again.

[Sangrolu]

Thankfully, balance is the means in 4th Ed.

Heh. Okay.

[Gilbetron]

You can--and 4e tries--to homogenize fun to make balance more meaningful. But doing so stands in the way of creativity IMO/E.
4E does not "try to homogenize fun", it in fact goes out of its way more than any other edition to give players lots of fun, flavorful, heterogeneous options, while still striving for combat balance.
When balance becomes the end instead of the means, fun goes by the wayside.
Fortunately 4E doesn't suffer from this.

[Kid Twist]

Played it. Love it. I really didn't like 3.5 at all, and 4e brought me back to D&D. It also brought my wife into gaming as well, so it's made a few converts. I'm glad they made such large changes--even Forgotten Realms, which has always felt overdetailed and stuffed, feels more like some place I can adventure. All of their products have hit the right notes for me.

[A Letter From Prague]

I like 4e.

I hated 3e.

[gc3]

Yet another plus vote.

D&D 4th has been great fun to run. It's easy to develop fights, skill challenges are a blast (one player succeeded a difficult skill challenge to seduce a virgin priestess... ), and the prep time is minimal.

Letting the players choose what magic items they want to find is fun too.

And using the artifact rules for those other magic items that could be dangerous is also great.

[mhacdebhandia]

While more jarring (to me) gamist elements include, powers that allow you to do damage to your target with your weapon even when you miss the target
Missing with a power is, of course, not at all the same thing as your weapon not even touching the target. It's simply the difference between full effect and partial effect - a concept which has existed in D&D since the first time someone took half damage from a fireball on a successful saving throw.

The rogue power knockout, for instance - on a successful hit, it deals damage and renders the target unconscious until it saves or takes more damage. If you "miss", you deal half damage to the target, and daze it until the end of your next turn - clearly, "in character", describing a glancing blow instead of the effective knockout hit you were trying for.

[Longinus Albinus]

Missing with a power is, of course, not at all the same thing as your weapon not even touching the target. It's simply the difference between full effect and partial effect - a concept which has existed in D&D since the first time someone took half damage from a fireball on a successful saving throw.

The rogue power knockout, for instance - on a successful hit, it deals damage and renders the target unconscious until it saves or takes more damage. If you "miss", you deal half damage to the target, and daze it until the end of your next turn - clearly, "in character", describing a glancing blow instead of the effective knockout hit you were trying for.

Indeed. A miss in D&D has never meant that the attack did not connect at all. Otherwise armour wouldn't make you harder to hit.

[RSC]

Missing with a power is, of course, not at all the same thing as your weapon not even touching the target. It's simply the difference between full effect and partial effect - a concept which has existed in D&D since the first time someone took half damage from a fireball on a successful saving throw.

The rogue power knockout, for instance - on a successful hit, it deals damage and renders the target unconscious until it saves or takes more damage. If you "miss", you deal half damage to the target, and daze it until the end of your next turn - clearly, "in character", describing a glancing blow instead of the effective knockout hit you were trying for.
Thus turning the hit roll into yet another game element that has no gameworld analog.

[Agentrolf]

I have very fond memories of 3.5, and I really liked it quite a bit, as I also used to play 2nd edition, and felt that it was very counterintuitive.

The thing about 3.5 that sort of bothered me were the 'legacy' issues of D&D- insta-death spells, absolute necessity of a cleric in the party for games beyond level 10, the fact that players followed one of two rulesets, the first half of the PHB, or the second, and that the two are totally different. I really liked 3.5, but I could go on for pages detailing all of my gripes with the issues.(many of the sidebars in the Rules Compendium by the 3.5 developers were sort how I felt about the rules too)

D&D 4 changed all of this. Players of Fighters, Clerics and Wizards all follow the same ruleset. Fighters have exploits(powers) and wizards have spells (also powers); there is no segregation between a Fighter (Feat-tastic choice) and a Wizard/Cleric/Druid (spell slots, memorization and caster level checks ahoy). The system is whole, and encompasses everything. There are a few things that bug me about D&D 4, mainly that the rules come out in drips and drabs, whereas at least 3.5 had the entirety of the rules upfront. I wanted alchemy in the PHB, I wanted more iconic monsters in the Monster Manual, but oh well.

All in all, Change is good. D&D is still as complicated as it has always been, but it is much more flexible, and as such I spend maybe a quarter of my time preparing for a D&D4 game than I did with 3.5, and that really jives with me as a DM.

[Gilbetron]

Thus turning the hit roll into yet another game element that has no gameworld analog.
"turning"? It's always been an abstraction in D&D.

[Lostdwarf]

I have been running a 4th edition game and having great fun with it. Characters are robust and interesting from level one, but still face significant challenges. Combat is more tactical than previous editions. This edition is less about what build you bring to the table and more about what you do once you get there. (Of course a smart build still helps).

From the DM side prep is easy. The guidelines for planning encounters in the DMG are extremly helpful, and there are really useful rules for modifying and creating your own monsters. It lets you spend less time crunching numbers and more time working on story and interesting encounter settings.

Overall, I give 4th ed. a very positive review. You have to go into it with an open mind. 4th is not an update or even a revision, its a top to bottom redesign. More changed with 4th edition than probably all the previous edition changes combined. The game is still early in its development as well, there are currently only 9 fully released classes (there is a 10th, the aritificer, that got a partial playtest release in dragon magazine.) It will take another 6+ months for what I consider the "core" rules to be totally released. Some iconic character classes and races are not out yet. People who dislike 4th greatly, and they are out there, I think dislike it so much either because it dared to change so much, or because an element that they strongly identified with did not make the first player's handbook.

But again, overall, its great fun.

[mhacdebhandia]

Thus turning the hit roll into yet another game element that has no gameworld analog.
Fucking horrors. I hope you don't faint! Someone fetch the smelling salts as a precaution . . .

Oh, wait, no, you're completely wrong.

The "hit roll" is the "roll to succeed". Do you "hit" and fully accomplish your goal in using the ability, or do you "miss" and not (whether that means accomplishing some lesser goal, or failing to have an effect at all)?

Besides which, we're talking about D&D, the game which has always used a "to hit" roll in the context of armour making you harder to hit. Which, you know, has led to literally decades of tiresome arguments about how armour should give you damage reduction from tiresome motherfuckers who - like you - take "to hit" way too fucking seriously.

Given that armour makes you harder to hit in D&D, the "to hit" roll is correctly understood as "to harm" - in any edition. Armour makes you harder to harm, even if it slows your movements enough to make it easier to physically land a blow.

Petty mouthings about "roll to hit" being rendered a supposedly meaningless phrase can be safely left aside, I think.

[Catfish]

Thus turning the hit roll into yet another game element that has no gameworld analog.
The point being, rather, that effects on a miss are not new to 4th edition; and that glancing blows or near grazes are hardly a stretch to visualize, if one is inclined to make a direct connection between the math of the game and the particulars of your descriptions.

[Baumi]

Just wanted to add one D&D 4E YEAH posts... :cool:

[macd21]

I've played 4ed. It is a fun game and, IMO, should be judged on its own merits as opposed to comparing/contrasting it with earlier editions of DnD all the time. If you do want to compare it to other games, compare it to all of the other games out there.

The combat system is a lot of fun - but it is not simulationist. It is intended to be entertaining, not realistic. In some ways it is more like a puzzle challenge - manouvering your enemies into position for the wizard to blast them all with a fireball or the rogue to backstab them etc.

It doesn't, IMO, provide as much support for non-combat play and what is there isn't very good. The Skill Challenge system is counter-productive, IME: it discourages play and roleplaying, making everything a mechanical/maths determination.

It sucks at character generation and differentiation. Every class represents a very limited range of character concepts and non-combat ones aren't really possible. Your fighter is going to be a competent warrior, not a bumbling farm-boy or a strong, but inexperienced, blacksmith. Your rogue is going to be an agile killer, your mage a devastating spell caster. You have to fit your character concept to the class, not the class to your concept.

If you want an intense roleplaying experience with little combat, you could play 4ed... but why bother? There are better games out there which provide more support for that kind of game. Personally, i dislike 3.X, especially as a GM, but there are a lot of things it does better than 4ed. Still, as I said earlier, you should look at all the games out there - and there are plenty that accomplish that kind of play better than both 4ed and 3.X. On the other hand, I don't think there are any games out there that beat 4ed at the type of tactical combat it uses.

[Mozart]

If you want an intense roleplaying experience with little combat, you could play 4ed... but why bother? There are better games out there which provide more support for that kind of game. Personally, i dislike 3.X, especially as a GM, but there are a lot of things it does better than 4ed. Still, as I said earlier, you should look at all the games out there - and there are plenty that accomplish that kind of play better than both 4ed and 3.X. On the other hand, I don't think there are any games out there that beat 4ed at the type of tactical combat it uses.
I kind of agree with this view. Although I don't think that chargen is nearly as limited as macd21 believes, and I don't think that 4E limits the RP elements of the game that much, the truth remains that 4E is designed to support high action fantasy adventure games. It does this exceptionally well, but conversely offers less (but not no) support for other modes of play than some other games.

Personally I'm having a blast playing 4E, but it'll never be the only game I play. It knows what it is and what it wants far more than 3E and is tremendous fun to play, and I'd recommend that anyone give it an honest try to see whether they enjoy it. But my response to someone who doesn't want what 4E has to offer would be to play another game.

4E is good at what it tries to do without trying to do everything. Overall, that makes me a happy man.

[Flawless Glory of Silence]

In an interview/podcast where Mike Mearls was talking about the quests system, he responded to a question of why the rewards were treasure and XP and other mechanical bits. His answer was, "Because we can't really write a rule that says, "And now, your DM gives you some good roleplay.'"

And that's what I love about 4E. They realize they can't sell you a roleplay experience, and that any given group is going to include just as much or as little of those soft RP elements (character development, plot, ongoing story) as they want. So they set about designing what they could sell you, a very good game. 4E has those clear points of "Add roleplay here," but leaves it to you to add as much as you like, while it gets about being a fun game to play and to run.

[Epic Cave Slime]

You're just being bitchy. Sorry. :(

But seriously, if you don't like 4E, I doubt that you can force yourself to like it. The changes you mention are indeed things that were changed from the previous editions, and if they are what you want in your dungeons - well, you won't find 'em in 4E. So don't torture yourself trying to like a game that is plainly not for you. 4E won't work for you. That doesn't make you weird or something, that's just the way it is.

Instead, put more work into recruiting or joining a group that plays your favorite edition of D&D. In the short term it will be more work; in the long term it will pay dividends in the form of Good Gamin'.

(Incidentally, IMO (and FWIW) 4E plays a lot better than it reads.)

[Bira]

I'm playing D&D 4 and I love it so far.

[Gloombunny]

Fucking horrors. I hope you don't faint! Someone fetch the smelling salts as a precaution . . .

Oh, wait, no, you're completely wrong.

The "hit roll" is the "roll to succeed". Do you "hit" and fully accomplish your goal in using the ability, or do you "miss" and not (whether that means accomplishing some lesser goal, or failing to have an effect at all)?

Besides which, we're talking about D&D, the game which has always used a "to hit" roll in the context of armour making you harder to hit. Which, you know, has led to literally decades of tiresome arguments about how armour should give you damage reduction from tiresome motherfuckers who - like you - take "to hit" way too fucking seriously.

Given that armour makes you harder to hit in D&D, the "to hit" roll is correctly understood as "to harm" - in any edition. Armour makes you harder to harm, even if it slows your movements enough to make it easier to physically land a blow.

Petty mouthings about "roll to hit" being rendered a supposedly meaningless phrase can be safely left aside, I think.
He must really hate those old editions with their minute-long combat rounds. Abstracting a minute's worth of maneuvering and attacking into one roll? Madness! I'm sure he'd agree that even 4e is a huge improvement over AD&D. Right?

[The Fallen]

I like it. It's not the Second Coming of Gary Gigax, or anything, but it's a fine game. I don't know if it's objetively better than 3.x, but is not worst.

[ZenDog]

I never played 3/3.5 and Moldvay Basic was my version, but I played 4E (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=415644) and had a blast. Looking forward to the next game.

[Gilbetron]

It sucks at character generation and differentiation. Every class represents a very limited range of character concepts and non-combat ones aren't really possible. Your fighter is going to be a competent warrior, not a bumbling farm-boy or a strong, but inexperienced, blacksmith. Your rogue is going to be an agile killer, your mage a devastating spell caster. You have to fit your character concept to the class, not the class to your concept.
I can see what your saying, in that 4E classes are more narrowly focused, but that's a real stretch to then jump to "it sucks at character generation and differentiation". If anything, it's much easier and fun in 4E to generate characters, because you have to worry a *lot* less about "builds". Most everything you pick will be an effective character. As for differentiation, I think the narrow focus on the classes will allow for wonderful differentiation as more classes come out. Plus there is still a lot of differentiation as it stands. I don't think turning a Fighter into a Rogue is a good game design.

If you want an intense roleplaying experience with little combat, you could play 4ed... but why bother? There are better games out there which provide more support for that kind of game. Personally, i dislike 3.X, especially as a GM, but there are a lot of things it does better than 4ed. Still, as I said earlier, you should look at all the games out there - and there are plenty that accomplish that kind of play better than both 4ed and 3.X. On the other hand, I don't think there are any games out there that beat 4ed at the type of tactical combat it uses.
I think you're spot on here, though. 4E does what it does very well - it had strong design goals and has met this exceedingly well. But that doesn't mean people will like it. I'm going to start running a game in a couple months for a group where we've been playing 3.5 since it came out. They want to give 4E a try, and I'm a little concerned a couple of the players will have a tough time swallowing some of the gamist elements. Healing Surges, non-magical "healing", changes to mages, etc. But, we'll see. We're going to run a test game first. I'm not going to put effort into a campaign and then have a player not have fun because "healing surges don't make sense!". Le sigh.

[Doctor,Wildstorm]

I like it.Compared with previous editions, 1,2 and maybe three are like AFMBE while 4th is like buffy. It's cinematic d&d.

[Requiem_17_23]

I've been running a successful D&D 4th campaign since the week after it came out. Very heavy on the RP, an average of one and a half combat encounters per session; with added extra special DM Fiat quest rewards and XP, the party are now most of the way through level 3. It's nice to have proper tactical interesting combat around when we get to fighting things, and the rest of the time we just roleplay. The players are used to Exalted, so fights are fairly slow and contain a lot of colourful description and stunts.

In general I like 4th ed. The gamist element means I can include in-jokes and other things that don't take themselves too seriously, and I strongly approve of the lack of attempts at simulation. If I need to simulate things I don't use the standard rules.

[Random Code]

Thus turning the hit roll into yet another game element that has no gameworld analog.

The 'problem' you've described isn't a symptom of the latest edition, it's evident in all editions. If that's how you feel then you really shouldn't be playing D&D (any edition). You know, go find a game where armour has damage reduction and heavier armour makes you easier 'to hit'.

[John Marron]

I'm playing in a 4E game and loving it. This is the first time I've played actual D&D (aside from one session of 3.5) since 1E in 1982, so it's a major accomplishment to get me back playing the game.

Others have covered most of the specific aspects I like, such as simplified character generation (I LIKE playing archetypes...), tactical combat, level playing field, etc.

John

[Nahat Anoj]

Regarding balance, I don't mind if the fighter is a better defender than a rogue, or a cleric is a better leader than a wizard.

However, I do want paladins and fighters to be roughly equal in terms of being a defender, or a ranger and warlock to perform their roles as strikers with roughly the same level of efficiency. I would not want one striker to obviously outclass all the others.

[Witness123]

4e has some things that I really liked including

- non biological racial abilities as feats
- the unified saving throw
- defense that increases with level
- multiclassing
- no more level drain
- no more xp costs
- toning down the spellcasters
- (edit) The Feywild,Shadowfell, and getting rid of the Great Wheel
However, despite liking the above changes. I will not run (or play) 4e. Most of the other changes are, imo, very disappointing or done better in other d20 products.

[furashgf]

I REALLY wanted to hate it but some points:


1. they put a lot of work into engineering this - not just for money's sake. It's clear they wanted to make a fun game that appealed to today's sensibilities with new kinds of mechanics.

2. clear focus on the whole narrative idea of STORY NOW. It's not that your character might be cool someday, your character is cool now!

3. the rules seem easier than 3.5. both for character creation and combat

4. the whole shadowfell, feywild, points of light, monsters, etc.. they did a good job.

5. I kind of like the weird ND wind mechanics. It's so unclear when the hell your guy might die it achieves the effect I always wanted - you feel like your character is always about to die but he never (rarely) actually does die.

Negatives:

6. still too many rules. Just don't like that many - this may be a personal preference thing.

[grimjaws]

I've played all editions of D&D, except for the originals (1974). And after having played 3.5 since it came out, I much prefer 4e. We played our first session over the weekend and the combat went faster in 4e than it ever did in 3.5. Our group really liked the level of competance of the characters and thier effectiveness in combat. The one problem we had was that without another party member playing along the warlord in our group was fairly limited in their contributions. This comes mainly from 3.5 where it didn't really matter if the party worked together in combat, so we are having to adjust our tactics from a number of small individual combats to a more team based approach.

[CaffeineBoy]

4th edition rocks my world.

I'm a grognard. I've played D&D since 1979 (still have the character sheets!). AD&D 1e was my introduction to a hobby that's kept my attention for almost 30 years. I've played lots of miniature games and lots of other rpgs, everything from Rolemaster to the rules-light indies. I've even taken more than a casual swing at game design myself.

I gave up on 1e because of college, Champions, and gamer group drift toward 2e. Never a big 2e fan. 3e brought me back to the fold -- I loved almost everything about it... except that it took me forFREAKINGever to get ready for a game. The 3.x system is IMHO a world/adventure/NPC-building enabler . It provided a fundamentally dysfunctional approach to prep work that was intended to help but which in fact perpetuated my problem with grossly overworking things.

4e is the Truth and the Light. The combat minigame lets everybody be constantly involved on more-or-less an equal footing, provides consistantly entertaining and dependable results and encourages teamwork and cooperation in a game intended to be played by groups of people. It's brilliant game design. Admittedly, you need to bring your own roleplaying mojo to the table, but that's never been an issue for me. And for those roleplaying moments where your character should be good at something that your players are not, the skill challenge system handles that quite well. I've only run a few of them but I think they've got tremendous potential for the social side of the game.

What 4e is not is startlingly original fantasy. Nor is it a cooperative storytelling game. Nor is it really even a robust worldbuilding engine. It's a pop-culture fantasy smash-n-grab toolkit that makes my DMing chores a very great deal more fun than they used to be, makes my games faster-paced and more cinematic and converts our table time into a far more concentrated distillation of awesome.

[Random Code]

4e is ... brilliant game design.

That's actually what I thought when I first read the new rules. I think I said in a post on here that I thought it was the best designed system I'd read since Unknown Armies and Pendragon 5th edition. I still stand by that.

[Zehnseiter]

I was sceptical to 4E at first but my players totally love it.

After the third game session (after rolling over Irontooth) they even gave me some money and the order: "Buy more Miniatures !!" :eek:

I rolled to disbelieve. So long my beloved 3E...

[Random Code]

After the third game session (after rolling over Irontooth) they even gave me some money and the order: "Buy more Miniatures !!" :eek:

That's a brilliant thing, for the guys you game with, to do for you. Awesome stuff.

[The Eye]

I really love D&D 4th edition, but I'm willing to admit there are flaws*. They just aren't flaws that prevent me from enjoying the game. I ran it for about two months and the game was great fun.




*For me, the most notable flaw was the skill challenge system's math. But that was fairly easy to replace. I'm not saying it wasn't a flaw, I'm just saying that it wasn't an important flaw.